Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:Really why ?
Size (turret again atop a large 8x8), effect (120mm in fighting at infantry ranges increases danger close limits), training burden (an additional AFV crew member as gunner), supply chain (larger she'll resupply).

The additional range is great in many cases, but exceeds that of the current need for infantry engagements.

sol
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Tempest414 wrote:Really why ?
Just the one reason - price.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

But again most possible opponent could be using soviet 120mm mortars of one flavour or another, and we would have to use either a number of NLOS style missile to counter these or 155mm guns. Counter battery fire is just as dangerous for mortars as it is for bigger weapons. It just seem whoever placed the requirement with Rheinmetall simply chose the simple option rather than look to the future and the capabilities the Army will need. Not choosing a 120mm weapon also costs the Army the greater flexibility such a weapon would bring. Yes cost is an issue, but this would be exactly the sort of thing the additional money being given to the MoD would be aimed at financing. It would be interesting to see how the costs of this all singing and dancing 81mm mortar compare to a simpler 120mm mounting such as in the Stryker.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:But again most possible opponent could be using soviet 120mm mortars of one flavour or another, and we would have to use either a number of NLOS style missile to counter these or 155mm guns.
You mean the Soviet 120mm with the similar range to the 81mm?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by mr.fred »

The 81mm is a good infantry support weapon:
Smaller round requires less logistics
shorter danger close distance allows you to keep firing as the infantry close with the objective
more rounds means longer duration of fire
Shorter range (than western 120mm) means lower apogee which needs less deconfliction in the operational area.


That said, a number of SP 120mm mortars like the Nemo on a boxer would seem to be a good fit for artillery support to a wheeled brigade.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

CV90 Mjolner could provide a cheaper 120mm solution if the mortars were mounted on Boxer.

Image

Image

sol
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by sol »

For sure, NEMO would be a great choice for support weapon, but it also have at least one big drawback, beside the price, and that is its caliber. Unlike US Army, British Army doesn't use 120mm mortars so with NEMO it would need to introduce another type of mortar shells just for Boxer equipped units. Which would raise a cost quite significantly.

So to me, keeping 81mm mortars have sense, at least for now. Also, for example, Rheinmetall also have 120mm system, MWS 120, which, according to their source, share 80% components with MSW 81, the system that is presented on DSEI. So, in the future, those 81mm mortars could be replaced with 120mm ones, if needed.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:CV90 Mjolner could provide a cheaper 120mm solution if the mortars were mounted on Boxer.

Image

Image
Where does the commander sit during a fire mission?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

There is no real reason why the British Army cannot adopt a 120mm SP Mortar for the Boxer. Yes it means new ammunition and training but the benefits outweigh to negatives. The 81mm would still have a role, especially for lighter units, though many nations use 120mm mortars for such units as in a basic form they can be towed by most 4x4 and can still be brought into action very quickly. They might not be as accurate as the SP mortars which are able to have some type of FCS added but still useful.

Russia has equipped most of its Mechanised and Motorised units with SP 120mm mortars using large calibre barrels. This has increased their range over legacy towed weapons and increased their rate of fire as well as allowing them to carry out direct fire missions.

We have to think how the British Army will have to fight in the future with its smaller self contained units operating in a dispersed yet networked manner. How things have been carried out over the past say 30 years is probably going to bear no resemblance to the Army's new battlefield doctrine. The Infantry will have far greater direct firepower as well as being able to engage targets behind cover up to 800m away using the newer generation of grenades.

The range at which the infantry can begin to engage an enemy will enable them to suppress an enemy before they are in range of the latter's own weapons including heavier weapons like the RPG. They will need however a means to engage the enemy's support weapons, like their mortars and shorter range artillery, that in integral to the Infantry units rather than relying on higher level artillery which is more likely to be engaging targets further behind said enemy. This is where the greater variety of ammunition for the 120mm will be important, being able to carry submunition or have a precision capability, meaning less rounds will be needed to take out a given target. The desire to reduce collateral damage is likely to mean the use of conventional dumb HE rounds will be restricted especially in built up areas.

The greater weight of the 120mm ammunition will have little effect on the SP weapons, but the introduction of UGVs will most likely alleviate this issue for light units. In addition the use of UAVs will greatly help to identify enemy positions and allow the most appropriate counter to be employed, be it direct or indirect fore and which weapon will be the most affective. The Army is looking to adopt an NLOS missile system which would compliment the 120mm mortars, with this system likely to be held at Battalion level as well. This will be just one of the new capabilities that will be introduced into the new BCTs over the next decade or so. I shall leave it there as I am moving more into the future of the Army and there is a thread for that already, but I will repeat looking back at how we have done things in the past may have little relevance as to how things are done in the future.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote: The 81mm would still have a role, especially for lighter units, though many nations use 120mm mortars for such units as in a basic form they can be towed by most 4x4 and can still be brought into action very quickly. They might not be as accurate as the SP mortars which are able to have some type of FCS added but still useful.
Towed systems have a FCS too. And towing equipment like the MO-120 is not the issue, but at nearly 20kg a round carried, you need a sizeable vehicle that can tow, carry 4 gunners and carry sufficient rounds. And then your in-out action times in a counter battery fires conflict are extended.
Lord Jim wrote:
The range at which the infantry can begin to engage an enemy will enable them to suppress an enemy before they are in range of the latter's own weapons including heavier weapons like the RPG. They will need however a means to engage the enemy's support weapons, like their mortars and shorter range artillery, that in integral to the Infantry units rather than relying on higher level artillery which is more likely to be engaging targets further behind said enemy.
That is not integral to the infantry at all. And if you start applying that scope creep then you might as well lump every job onto the infantry and tell them to sort themselves out.

Counter battery fire is an artillery role, with RA units working closely with the manoeuvre arm commander to meet their needs. The MAC and the infantry, are not trained in artillery directing.

To further build on your point about fighting the next war, counter battery also requires the correct sensor systems to do so, as well as the ISR assets to direct NLOS fire missions. How do infantry do that?
Lord Jim wrote: The greater weight of the 120mm ammunition will have little effect on the SP weapons, but the introduction of UGVs will most likely alleviate this issue for light units.
At nearly 20kg a round that's just not true. Plus the volume requirements. An 81mm round is a quarter of that by a quick datasheet check.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:CV90 Mjolner could provide a cheaper 120mm solution if the mortars were mounted on Boxer.

Image

Image
Where does the commander sit during a fire mission?
Anywhere he wants?

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:CV90 Mjolner could provide a cheaper 120mm solution if the mortars were mounted on Boxer.

Image

Image
Where does the commander sit during a fire mission?
Anywhere he wants?
Judging by the hatches, the commander is also loading the mortar :roll:

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by SKB »

No, the Commander is the mortar.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

RunningStrong wrote:Lord Jim wrote:
The 81mm would still have a role, especially for lighter units, though many nations use 120mm mortars for such units as in a basic form they can be towed by most 4x4 and can still be brought into action very quickly. They might not be as accurate as the SP mortars which are able to have some type of FCS added but still useful.

Towed systems have a FCS too. And towing equipment like the MO-120 is not the issue, but at nearly 20kg a round carried, you need a sizeable vehicle that can tow, carry 4 gunners and carry sufficient rounds. And then your in-out action times in a counter battery fires conflict are extended.

Lord Jim wrote:

The range at which the infantry can begin to engage an enemy will enable them to suppress an enemy before they are in range of the latter's own weapons including heavier weapons like the RPG. They will need however a means to engage the enemy's support weapons, like their mortars and shorter range artillery, that in integral to the Infantry units rather than relying on higher level artillery which is more likely to be engaging targets further behind said enemy.

That is not integral to the infantry at all. And if you start applying that scope creep then you might as well lump every job onto the infantry and tell them to sort themselves out.

Counter battery fire is an artillery role, with RA units working closely with the manoeuvre arm commander to meet their needs. The MAC and the infantry, are not trained in artillery directing.

To further build on your point about fighting the next war, counter battery also requires the correct sensor systems to do so, as well as the ISR assets to direct NLOS fire missions. How do infantry do that?

Lord Jim wrote:
The greater weight of the 120mm ammunition will have little effect on the SP weapons, but the introduction of UGVs will most likely alleviate this issue for light units.

At nearly 20kg a round that's just not true. Plus the volume requirements. An 81mm round is a quarter of that by a quick datasheet check.
Yes I know the rounds for the 120mm are heavier than those of the 81mm mortars, but the effect of an individual 120mm round is also considerably greater then that of a 81mm. The same can be said comparing the 105mm light gun and a 155mm SP Gun, yet the 105 is seen by many nations as a secondary weapon today, with the 155mm, especially SP versions becoming the default artillery support.

The towed weapons, even the clones of the WWII 120mm Russian mortar that proliferates around the would can be brought into action in less than a minute due to its cradle, fire three or four rounds, be placed back in its cradle, hooked up to the towing vehicle and be on the move in a remarkably short time. A JLTV for example could carry the crew and sufficient rounds for its towed 120mm to carry out a number of fire mission before needing to be restocked. The 120mm also has the advantage of being able to be given precision guidance kits and also able to carry submunition. The much higher angle of a mortar of any size makes it far more effective in urban or close terrain than artillery such as the 155mm.

The heavy and light BCTs are going to be self contained and therefore will need to use their networked capabilities and situational awareness to identify targets and engage them with the most appropriate weapons system. At most a BCT will have a single Regiment of Artillery, most likely being a wheeled SP155mm. In peer conflicts the BCT will face far more enemy Artillery assets and the Artillery regiment will be mainly trying to nullify these, hopefully with some support for the Deep Fires BCT. This means the main indirect fire support for close and medium engagements will be the integral Mortars of the Infantry Battalions, as well as any NLOS missile systems that are part of the BCT. It will be the BCTs ISR assets that will be key to identifying the enemy, and this is one of the key new capabilities the BCTS will introduce complimenting the integrated digital network linking all units, vehicles and many personnel.

As for the volume requirement, one precision 120mm bomb will most likely be more effective on a given target then four or more 81mm bombs. Even for light units that may still be equipped with the 81mm mortars, the use of UGVs is going to become the norm to carry such weapons, except for small specialist units that may still manpack the weapons. There the added weight of the 120mm should be mitigated.

However until we see the actual size and shape of the new BCTs all of the above is probably the more glass half full position, and the Army could go for options that I would see as being glass half empty. Our small BCTs are going to have to fight in new ways and punch above their weight against a far more numerous foe. If they do not receive the added firepower our units desperately need then we will be little better off than we are now, still being outnumbered and out gunned but at least we may know where our end is coming from.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

Has there been any further information on the acceleration of Boxer deliveries as mentioned in the Command Paper. Once deliveries start of production standard vehicles we really need to produce enough Boxer variants to equip an Infantry Battalion per year as against the twelve per year at the present rate planned. In fact this should be the bare minimum as the Boxer is likely to be replacing many platform in the BCTs beyond the Infantry Units in the Heavy BCTs and possibly some could also be going to the Light BCTs to provide fire support of the units that will be mainly equipped with the MRV(P).

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Has there been any further information on the acceleration of Boxer deliveries as mentioned in the Command Paper. Once deliveries start of production standard vehicles we really need to produce enough Boxer variants to equip an Infantry Battalion per year as against the twelve per year at the present rate planned. In fact this should be the bare minimum as the Boxer is likely to be replacing many platform in the BCTs beyond the Infantry Units in the Heavy BCTs and possibly some could also be going to the Light BCTs to provide fire support of the units that will be mainly equipped with the MRV(P).
12 a year? Don't think that's correct. I thought it was about one a week?

And I for one, have not seen any news of the promised acceleration.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

You may be right, also I know is that we are getting less than is needed to equip an Infantry Battalion each year, with it taking up to eighteen months to achieve this goal. That is way too slow, and given the importance of this platform I think we should be getting three Battalions worth every two years, meaning by 2025 we will have equipped the planned four units and also being able to replace many FV430 and CVR(T) platforms currently still in service.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2318
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by bobp »

Lord Jim wrote:Has there been any further information on the acceleration of Boxer deliveries as mentioned in the Command Paper. Once deliveries start of production standard vehicles we really need to produce enough Boxer variants to equip an Infantry Battalion per year as against the twelve per year at the present rate planned. In fact this should be the bare minimum as the Boxer is likely to be replacing many platform in the BCTs beyond the Infantry Units in the Heavy BCTs and possibly some could also be going to the Light BCTs to provide fire support of the units that will be mainly equipped with the MRV(P).
I do not think they have manufactured any Boxers in the UK yet. I expect they will accelerate production once the first few have left the production line.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

They could also supplement deliveries from the UK line by use the Rheinmetall line in Germany, which they are using for initall deliveries anyway.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

I really hope the increased lethality initiative under way regarding Boxer is looking at a lot more than simply adding Javelin to the RWS. Javelin is already falling behind the capabilities existent in more modern ATGWs such as the Spike family had the French MMP. Boxer needs more conventional hitting power, in other words more then a .50cal for the Infantry carriers as well as decent optics and FCS. We are spoilt for choice in both the turrets and weapons mounted that have been trailed on Boxer by the Manufacturer. The quickest would be to either adopt the Israeli turret in use with Lithuania or the Lance-R turret mounted on teh Australian Boxer CRV. Both use a 30mm auto cannon and Spike-LR2 ATGWs but the former is unmanned allowing for eight dismounts whilst the latter is manned limiting the dismounts to six. Yes more money has to be found but if isn't and the Army doesn't realise its current ten year modernisation plan, we might as well simply conduct only SF and Peace Keeping operations in the future and leave Peer level warfighting to others.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:I really hope the increased lethality initiative under way regarding Boxer is looking at a lot more than simply adding Javelin to the RWS. Javelin is already falling behind the capabilities existent in more modern ATGWs such as the Spike family had the French MMP. Boxer needs more conventional hitting power, in other words more then a .50cal for the Infantry carriers as well as decent optics and FCS. We are spoilt for choice in both the turrets and weapons mounted that have been trailed on Boxer by the Manufacturer. The quickest would be to either adopt the Israeli turret in use with Lithuania or the Lance-R turret mounted on teh Australian Boxer CRV. Both use a 30mm auto cannon and Spike-LR2 ATGWs but the former is unmanned allowing for eight dismounts whilst the latter is manned limiting the dismounts to six. Yes more money has to be found but if isn't and the Army doesn't realise its current ten year modernisation plan, we might as well simply conduct only SF and Peace Keeping operations in the future and leave Peer level warfighting to others.
Regrettable as it was to see the appalling scenes of the UK & US troops leaving Afghanistan. You'd think that the withdrawal would save the MoD a ton of money that could be put into the improvement programs.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by Lord Jim »

The whole MoD seems to be in shock and is also stunned by the additional funding it has got. It doesn't seem to know what to do and too many voices are offering suggestions internally. The new money was supposed to be for new transformational programmes not bolstering existing programmes and dealing with overspends. Turning Boxer into an IFV to replace Warrior should fall into this category, as should looking into all the variants of the Boxer needed to balance and flesh out the Battalions planned to be equipped with it, but are currently nowhere to be seen on any project summary.

The Mod really should either bite the bullet as allocate the funding that is needed to modernise/transform the Army into a force fit for the future, or admit our global reach will be based mainly on naval and air power backed by Special Forces supported by other small specialist units.

BB85
Member
Posts: 61
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by BB85 »

Or just stop pissing away so much money in failed procurement. We've burnt through 7bn with little to show for it. Had we stuck with boxer and selected cv90 both programs would have been delivered by now.
Warrior LEP never should have seen the light of day. Refurbing aluminium hulls after 30 years and serving in 4 majors wars was always going to be Nimrod 2.0.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Boxer / Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV)

Post by RunningStrong »

I think BOXER IFV is the lowest priority, for practicality and cost reasons. The MIV programme is intended to replace a host of roles performed by FV432 and others, as well as further variants (repair, recovery and bridging) that enable the force. Hence what we saw at DSEi was not an IFV.
BB85 wrote:Had we stuck with boxer and selected cv90 both programs would have been delivered by now.
Considering BAE are only just prototyping an AJAX equivalent cCV90 mkIV, I admire your optimism.

Post Reply